McKillen -v- Information Commissioner [2016] IEHC 27 (19 January 2016)

McKillen -v- Information Commissioner [2016] IEHC 27 (19 January 2016)

The High Court held that the standard for a s.42 FOI appeal is equivalent to judicial review and that the Information Commissioner’s decision would not be interfered with unless it was based on no evidence or was irrational. The appellant could not raise new arguments on appeal that were not made before the Commissioner. The Commissioner was entitled to rely on the information provided regarding the discovery status of records 6-16, and any error was attributable to the appellant. The s.27(1)(b) exemption for commercial sensitivity was properly applied to record 5, and the public interest did not require disclosure of the redacted information. The Commissioner correctly applied s.22(1)(b)...

Citation
[2016] IEHC 27
Parties
Appellant: Patrick McKillen; Respondent: Information Commissioner; Notice Party: Minister for Finance
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
19 January 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal on a Point of Law Under S.42 Freedom of Information Act 1997 / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
FOI Exemptions, Public Interest, Commercial Sensitivity, Contempt of Court, Judicial Review Standard, Appeal on Point of Law
Administrative Law Freedom of Information FOI Exemptions Public Interest Commercial Sensitivity Contempt of Court Judicial Review Standard Appeal on Point of Law

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 29 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patrick McKillen

Appellant

Information Commissioner

Respondent

Minister for Finance

Notice Party

Procedural Posture

Appeal on a Point of Law Under S.42 Freedom of Information Act 1997 / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Information Commissioner erred in law in refusing access to certain records under s.22(1)(b) and s.27(1)(b) of the FOI Act
  2. 2 Whether a manifest error of fact regarding discovery status of records 6-9 amounted to an error of law
  3. 3 Whether the public interest required disclosure of redacted information in record 5

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held that the standard for a s.42 FOI appeal is equivalent to judicial review and that the Information Commissioner’s decision would not be interfered with unless it was based on no evidence or was irrational. The appellant could not raise new arguments on appeal that were not made before the Commissioner. The Commissioner was entitled to rely on the information provided regarding the discovery status of records 6-16, and any error was attributable to the appellant. The s.27(1)(b) exemption for commercial sensitivity was properly applied to record 5, and the public interest did not require disclosure of the redacted information. The Commissioner correctly applied s.22(1)(b)...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed and the decision of the Information Commissioner is affirmed.